First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ Americans - NBC News

There are ways to help people without inviting enemies sworn to kill you into your home. Christian charity is one thing, behaving like a f'n idiot is something else entirely.

My views are pretty consistent on this for a number of years now:
1) a state of war exists between the United States (and much of the "western world" and Islam. That isn't a state based on religious conflict between Islam & Christianity, I don't sense a particularly Chrisitian-centric bias in the attacks on U.S. / Western interest, it's coincidental (otherwise, Israel would be an afterthought)

2) It's nothing short of asinine to allow enemies to roam the streets as it is, much less allow more of them into the country. Why the strong urge for such insanity exists baffles me, but the reason isn't nearly as important as recognizing it for what it is & working past it.

3) Not one piece of scripture I've read in my lifetime calls on believers to act like complete idiots living out a desire for personal or national suicide.

For some reason I decided to wade into the morass of Facebook comments on news articles. I posted what I believe was a cogent and reasoned response about what one of reps said about the immigration order. I provided government sources and everything to point out how what he said was actually wrong.

I was called a sheep and was told it was the dumbest thing they had read all day.

I have no hope that if Democracy is ending, that a sizeable enough portion of America would fight against it.

How is someone fleeing a war a "sworn enemy"? How is an airline pilot or a 10-year U.S. military employee a "sworn enemy"?

What are all the checkboxes someone has to fill before you'd consider helping them? (white, christian, straight, southern, conservative, sports fandom affiliation?)


I've never read one piece of scripture calling for believers to harshly limit the help we give others based on race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, or be content to "find ways" to help others that allow us to cling to our earthly prejudices.

How clear can I make this?

There is NO acceptable Muslim immigration into the U.S.
None, nada, zip, zero.

Unless they disavow all affiliation to Islam -- and somehow convince me that such is sincere (which is one helluva bar frankly) -- I could not remotely care less if they live, die, fuck or fly. No more than I would have cared a whit for the fate of the Nazis, citizens of the Japanese Empire, members of the Viet Cong, nor the Soviets during the Cold War. I'm not a believer in aid or comfort to the enemy, not my thing.

The issue I see with the current ban is that it's woefully inadequate to needs.
I can't exactly bitch about a small step in the only rational direction, but it's nothing more than a very small step.

So, when Jesus is asked "who is my neighbor" your answer would have been...not them?

So, JIMGA, if I followed your reasoning, I'm supposed to believe that all white people everywhere are the enemy because a few of them lynched many of my people over the course of American history and bombed African-American churches.

This is ridiculous.

I think it's just a matter of us v. them. His issue with the Nazis, Japanese Empire, Viet Cong, or Soviets certainly isn't their approach to government, it's just that they were the enemy. So it's not a moral question of what groups do, or what individual members of those groups do. So a Muslim doctor who saves children is still the "the enemy", where a white murderer is wrong, but still part of our country and team. So from that perspective, the white murderer is still better and more worthy of rights and help than that Muslim doctor.

At least, I think that's it. And IMO, that's completely contradictory to Jesus' teachings. That guy worked outside the government and countries entirely, on a human-to-human level rather than country-to-country, and that caused him some problems if I recall.

Well, it's not like you are originally from the US either ! Oh, wait a minute ... Didn´t the vast majority of white people come from somewhere as refugees ? Lemme check that fact real quick. Nope, always been there and valiantly defended their own god given country from the british. #alternativefacts

I remember reading something before the election where ethnically identifying as 'other' and specifying 'American' was an even stronger predictor of Trump support than all the questions designed to get a sense of the respondent's views on political issues, so this isn't far from accurately describing what's going on.

If I had preached a sermon this past week, I would have chosen the Good Samaritan parable. I would have spent the entire sermon not mentioning current events at all, just delving into all of the particulars of the parable, and what Jesus was using it for, to tell the questioner who is his neighbor, and how Samaria was looked down on by the Jews so much. And then, as I finished my sermon, I would end with a simple question. "Who is our neighbor today?" "Who do we look down upon today?" And if my church was ready, I'd answer.

If I were in your congregation, I might have been the guy who dropped by your office later in the week and invited you to consider the few verses preceding the parable itself and encouraged you to re-evaluate said application and interpretation of it(though the point you are making I completely agree with as being the correct, and Christian, approach to these times).

I'd respond in this way.

1. It is inherently impossible for a state of war to exist between a country and a religion. By their very nature, major religions cross national boundaries and comprise such a wide variety of cultures and peoples as to defy any possibility of this occurring. Not to mention the whole thing with Congress having to declare war from our end.

2. See #1. Also the first amendment is quite clear on how to treat religions. If it is unconstitutional to restrict the practice of religion(and it is), it's much more so to criminalize/war against those believing in it.

3. Agreed. Innocent but wise, as Jesus said. However, per the first two points, the current situation vis a vis Islam does not vaguely resemble the description given of it.

Regarding those we know to be the enemy, I think there are very few measures that aren't justified(though there are some). However, guilt-by-association is in my opinion indefensible.

You're trying to rationalize with a guy comfortable with genocide. This won't work.

Perhaps. But my views have changed based on conversations with people here and elsewhere on a couple matters of significance. And to give credit where it's due, I do respect and even admire JIMGA's ability to be involved in these kinds of blunt conversations and not take things personally. So I figured it to be worth the effort.

Trump now has his own Saturday Night Massacre

FWIW, amid all this opposition, polling on the ban starting to come in.

Rasmussen: 57% for, 33% against
Quinnipaic: 48% for, 42% against

Those are the ones I've seen so far. Speak for themselves. Clearly, this board, and the media, don't speak for the average American.

I appreciate you acknowledging that reality.
(It kinda gets glossed over here occasionally)

I'd say the answer to His question is not relevant to making decisions for the survival of a nation.

Our government (as I've noted in discussions past) has a Christian background, underpinnings for lack of a better word.

It is not, however, a theocracy.

People are still talking about this guy?

From the article for the Rasmussen poll:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...rrorist_havens


It's really a democrat republican thing. The poll was taken late last week too. I'd guess support has dropped slightly since then as people have seen the impact hits far wider than most probably imagined.

So Trump has canned the Acting Attorney general and put a yes man in the place.

The Q poll was three weeks ago, so we'll need to wait and see if other polls are still in that range. Rasmussen has had a consistent pro-GOP bias for years, right now they have Trump at over 50% favorable, so it should be taken with some salt.

Polls will eventually come in. There's no need to rush to judgement.

As for the AG, she did the right thing, but he's also within his rights to fire her. My only problem are the gratuitous shots at her integrity, which given her history seem way out of line. But Trump's gonna Trump.

Fixed that for you.

BTW, the reply to their troll can apply to you too:
“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

"Command" of course refers to love one another

But do carry on. Maybe next time you can use this- just replace Savior with Church, media, liberals, etc

"This savior, I shall attempt to show, deceived many and caused them to accept a form of belief harmful to the well-being of mankind. Taking its root in the lower classes, the religion continues to spread among the vulgar: nay, one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity and the illiteracy of its adherents. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who interpret its beliefs allegorically, yet it thrives in its purer form among the ignorant.”

I don't think that's a terrible surprise. I got laughed out of the election thread when I suggested that there's a large, relatively quiet group that could push Trump over the top and I was stating that when all the polls and the posters in this forum were already putting the crown on Hillary's head. It panned out in the total shock in this same forum on election night. There's no question this is a liberal-leaning forum.

Should never have bothered with keeping an Obamite in the first place honestly.
Her credibility was already in question just from association with the previous administration.

You spent the last three presidential elections assured that the GOP would win and you finally were on the right side.

Trust the process.

Because Bob Barr is known to hire liberal extremists.

Are you guys really arguing that a parable about helping someone who has been beaten and is lying on the side of the road is not applicable to someone who is fleeing a war ravaged country? Especially when they're both the most socially ostracized group of their time?

The leaps people will take to tell Jesus he didn't say something are amazing.

You got laughed out because you treat politics like a teenage fanboy treats the console wars (which I would add is also embarrassing for a grown man to do).

In all fairness I think that's a little different. The polls were extremely close to the final result in terms of how the popular vote broke down. The electoral college and where that vote came from, not so much. But it's not like they were off the reservation.

But yeah, general point no question the forum leans left. As do most of the ones I visit. Not sure why that is, but whatever.

I dunno why everyone is so pissed with Trump. This is just the "figuring what the hell is going on" step anyways. :)

I'd be more akin to being on his side of the ban if we were actually banning terrorist supporting nations as well.

Throughout history it really seems like Islam has no chill whatsoever. So while I can empathize with individual cases, especially those of green card holders(seriously WTF) and properly vetted refugees, I'm not exactly hoping that we open the floodgates for a large amount of Muslims to come into this country. Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with "generic western values.".

Dola-

And it's not like I hate Muslims. We get a fair amount of them in where I work and I go out of my way to insure that their food items are cut with knives that haven't touched pork products and I put on fresh gloves before assembling their order.

Yes, if you're talking about the type of people who know how to use a computer beyond going on Facebook to comment on their grandkids' pictures and share the trustworthy news article they found about Obama banning the Pledge of Allegiance from all schools, that is going to be a little skewed in one direction.

From a foreigner's perspective who has had to apply for a regular US tourist visa several times, the concept that this executive order will prevent terrorists from coming in is kind of head scratching.

The United States is the only country that I have ever applied a visa to that requires a personal appearance, a police clearance / local federal clearance document, a 5 to 30 minute interview with a Consular officer, fingerprints, photos, proof of employment, proof of ownership of properties, and proof of income. They will ask for any other supporting documents or persons of contact if required. You can be denied at any point during the interview, and they will claim the $100 visa fee.

Apply for a U.S. Visa | Home - Philippines (English)

And when you finish with all of the above, it will take you 2 weeks to a month to actually receive your passport back from the US Embassy (I am assuming this is time for additional vetting).

And that's just to get an actual tourist visa back in 2010.

My China, Japan, and UK visas were all non-appearance and only supporting documents required with a processing fee.

You have the most rigorous visa processing in the world.

The only countries that are exempted from this process are the ones part of the visa waiver program, most of which are first-world countries.

Visa Waiver Program

The refugee program for the US is one of the most rigorous in the world as well. It takes at least two years for these refugees to even set foot in US soil.

What Trump and his cohorts are selling is fear. Fear that you're not safe. Fear that you've never been safe. When in fact, the US government has been doing an already pretty good job of keeping you guys safe in your own soil, ever since 9-11, more than any other democratic country in the world.

Invoking fear is what people/headlines want you to believe. Trump is doing this because he's the puppet president for the Tea Party. They have a strong disdain towards illegal immigrants, muslims, and Obama.

Definitely feels to me like Trump is in this 100% for the business/family side of things, and he's happy to let his inner-circle actually drive policy with him as the figurehead... which might not even be so bad if not for the scumbags that make up that circle. It's only been a week and it feels like a real dark period in US history has begun, one of those 'watershed moments', and in a couple of decade's time people will be wondering exactly how people at the time didn't see it coming.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Yeah I don't get why conservatives in this country turn into snowflakes every time the word "terrorism" is mentioned.

He's really just a populist. Not terribly different from what we've seen in the past. Find a group of people that are struggling and unhappy with their lives and give them a scapegoat. Democrats blamed crime ridden cities on evil white racist cops instead of the real problems. Trump is now offering a scapegoat in immigrants and refugees for those who have failed financially.

He'll do what most populists do which is spend big (which is ironic since the same supporters bashed Obama for spending) and cut taxes. The reputation of the country will change and some people will be impacted but I still think like with most Presidents, people will go on with their lives with little change.

Probably the most glaring change is in the office of the Presidency. We've never really had someone as unprofessional in the position before. Or surrounded by people who dislike the country (again ironic that supporters consider themselves "patriots") this much. Maybe that becomes the new norm for the Presidency with the way the country has shifted discourse. Maybe it was just one weird election and it goes back to normal afterwards.

Politics will always be about riling up a group of people and then telling them it's someone else's fault that they are where they are in this world.

That's like saying Christianity is the same as the Westboro baptist church? - you're taking a very small minority and branding an entire religion with their stance.

I've an Iranian friend who is presently studying for a Phd at FIT, as it stands is likely to be deported in three months time - he drinks harder than I do and plays poker with me regularly ... he loves BBQ and disk golf ... sound like your expectation of a 'Muslim'? ... perhaps you need to revisit your expectations by actually meeting real people rather than relying on propoganda?

(so yeah that's one of many reasons why I'm somewhat peeved over peoples 'I can't believe anyone is upset by this' style comments in the last few years ... not meaning on this forum, but generally irl and on facebook)

Was watching CNN last night and one guest (a second-generation American Muslim) kept referring to "President Bannon." Now, this guy was mostly schtick, but I wonder if this might not be an effective way to fight this setup - repeatedly question Trump's legitimacy by recognizing Bannon as the real person in charge. Trump may not want to actually be in charge, but I'd bet he wants to maintain the outward appearance that he is. Questioning that might get him pissed off enough to turn on Bannon.

But, I'm glad that more people are directing their attention there. David Gergen was a guest as well and was also pointing the finger directly at Bannon's role. And they dug up the webcam clip of Bannon essentially stating that there's a war with Islam.

Ironically and unintentionally, that might be the most accurate thing you've written in these politics threads.

This is essentially where I fall as well. Painting all of Islam with this broad brush of terrorism is just absurd. To speak to the post you quoted in your original post Marc (on a phone without Tapatalk, hard to multi-quote):

"Their religion and lifestyle is not really compatible with 'generic Western values.'"

What exactly are those values? Maybe it's because I live in the heart of silicon valley where there is incredible diversity, but I thought the core principle of the entire country was inclusion and representation, exactly the opposite of exclusion.

I can understand and sympathize with JiMGA's sentiment of not letting enemies in, but I don't know how the rational argument is made that all Muslims are enemies.

How does questioning a culture equate to repressing someone because of their beliefs?

Edit: I don't mean this as an attack - I think you are correct that we can't go the other way and say all Muslims are great people. But to say that "other countries enforce crappy things that have to do with this religion, so it's OK that we do crappy things to people who associate with that religion" seems spurious.

I'm in no way saying we should do these crappy things. I think the ban is wrong. I was just taking exception to comparing the Middle East to the Westboro Baptist Church. The extremists are in much larger quantities in that region.

I guess what I'm saying is there should be balance like we had before. We take in refugees and legal immigrants because this is America and it's in our best interests. We also vet to make sure that extremists are not entering the country to do harm to it.

Well, except for Jesus willing going to the Cross, right? And then the martyrdom of St. Stephen in emulation of Christ?

To be fair, he said scripture he's read.

Indeed. If all Muslims had that view, the world would be a whole lot bloody. Also it would mean that my parents and my brother (and his family) have been holding out - thankfully I converted before whatever sleeper gene in Muslims turns on ;).


Indeed. Everyone in the Muslim community where I grew up basically had the American Dream values of work (in whatever job available - why a lot of South Asians work in gas stations, and are made fun for that, because they think that any job is better than no job & welfare) and making money to provide for your family and kids, and with whatever is left over to give to the mosque or the poor (zakat, a requirement among Muslims means giving to the poor).

I don't know what they were doing in their 3-5 bedroom houses with 2 cars and 2-3 kids, but it sure looked like American values to me (though my dad doesn't really follow American sports anymore - he used to follow the Bills when he came into the country - and my brother follows the 49ers, which may be worse ;) ).


Let's be honest though; we are lucky to not have lived in theocracies for a few centuries. There are definitely Evangelical Christians who hold such views (and exported them to countries like Uganda).

President Donald Trump will continue to enforce a 2014 executive order signed by then-President Barack Obama that offers protections for LGBT people working for federal contractors, the White House announced Tuesday.

I wouldn't go this far with regards to Yates, but I don't have a problem with the firing. All of the cabinet positions serve at the will of the President.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (i.e., uncertain of the Constitutionality of the order) and the benefit of expertise (i.e., lawyer), but that doesn't change the fact that she still serves at the President's will.

There may be long term consequences to the perception of staffing the country's highest legal office with "yes people" rather than "law people" -- and there probably should be for a party that's been pounding their chests over the "rule of law" for the last decade -- but I don't think anybody in the Yates situation did anything out of bounds.

I put it up there with firing the offensive coordinator you inherited from the last head coach because he's a run-first guy and you're Air Coryell by philosophy.

Lemme run with your very thinking here for a second, see if I can add just a little something to my own take.

It seems pretty fair to say that there are significant philosophical differences between the previous administration and the current one. Those would include matters of approach and priorities.

I'm cool with her saying no if that's her bent, I'm cool with him firing her ass because of it. It was only a temporary caretaker role anyway,not as though this was any sort of long-term situation. I'm just saying that the outcome here seemed pretty predictable and was likely doomed from the start.

This is rich. Here is Sessions grilling Yates about obeying unlawful orders from the President:

I don't think many people would/could argue with this statement.

That actually says you are 'saved' - it doesn't state don't obey the laws ... or do you think that all of the commandments are null and void etc. .... if so why do churches go on about them all the time?

I didn't think anyone could argue that we don't already do a good job of vetting them considering what the actual process is and how many terror attacks have actually been committed by refugees, but here we are.

Yeah, I think Neon_Chaos's post from the previous page outlines that point well. Which then leads to the question. What actually is the point of the executive order?

It was Giuliani's proposed "legal" solution for Trump's desire for a Muslim ban. It's as far as they felt they could get right now. The legality has now been challenged, but that was the idea and process of how it came about, as confirmed by Giuliani.

So they are putting people in front of the camera to say it's not a ban even though Trump just said it was a ban the other day.

I'm genuinely worried about Spicer's health.

Agree with you completely. This is one of those times that I want to smack some of my liberal friends and tell them to stop being Chicken Little. It's been a little more than a week, for God's sake, and we've already burned through at least a full quarter's share of outrage over largely predictable moves.

My FB feed is full of people who voted for Trump opining that (for once) America is pissed off about a President who is actually keeping his promises. It's a funny line, yes, but those of us who didn't support him should be listening to their message rather than just reacting to the dig. Stop pretending that he's not going to do what he said he's going to do. We know what his game plan is. Everyone is running around like their hair is on fire because the "uncertainty" of it all.

It's not fucking uncertain. He intends to do what he said he's going to do. If you disagree with him, stop wasting all of your time freaking out about what this or that statement might mean or how it could lead to catastrophe x, y, or z...and do something about it. Stop reacting to rhetoric and focus on opposing action.

I know you're a Trump guy -- at least of sorts, Jon. I hope this doesn't come across as poking at you, because I'm not. Trump here is really just an example of "whoever is in office that's on the opposite side of you"...and I'm getting tired of listening to "my" side just whine and talk about what hat to wear to the next march.

Look, you want to resist tariffs or trade deals you think are driven by croneyism? Stop buying shit just because it's cheap. Be willing to sacrifice for principle. If you truly believe that the economic policies aren't being crafted to protect American jobs, but to make billionaire pals into multi-billionaire pals...well, fucking opt out. Keep your wallet closed for American products. Buy Japanese. Not as a boycott, but as an assertion that "buy American" is only valid if America is making the best-in-class, and all the tariffs and closed economic borders in the world won't change that.

Just, for Christ's sake, don't schedule another community meeting to organize a protest about it. Just like in the real world, having a meeting is not the same as working. Meetings are what you do to get *out* of doing actual work.

There seems to be this illusion about the politics of opposition that if we just expose, expose, expose, the truth will come out and we'll win. (Whoever we is and whatever the truth is.) I'm pretty sure that this is a Hollywood myth. It's some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington shit.

The things that are happening are happening because half the population of the country wants them to happen (at any given time, in any given administration). If you don't like it, find ways to resist. If you can't be buggered to resist, then it's really not that important to you and you're just being a drama llama. Stop it.

Step 1: Trump say we need to negotiate drug prices through Medicare

Step 2: Trump meets with Pharma reps

Step 3: Trump says negotiating costs is price fixing and is opposed to that.

The Art of the Deal!

For me its the fact I 'know' what he's going to do which terrifies me, Fox News etc. spent all its time pre-election spouting that it was only the liberals who thought he'd do the things he was saying and that his supporters knew he wouldn't ... us liberals feared he was saying what he'd do and now he is.

I've seen an Iranian friend having to prepare to be deported in a few months and is seeing several years work studying for a Phd likely to go up in smoke.

My step-daughter is gay and is terrified of (1) losing her insurance, (2) increasing discrimination (she's already been subject to increased harassment and quit a job with the local sheriffs department recently.

I know a local lawyer who went down to Cape Canaveral port to offer to represent some of the people detained there after the immigration changes, he was told the people detained weren't allowed representation - if you don't find that concerning then I'm shocked - these were people with Visa's who had innocently gone on a cruise not knowing the law would change while they were out at sea.

I'm "lucky" I'm white, middle aged and male - I have a decent job so I'm largely alright unless I'm arrested somewhere demonstrating against Trump which may well happen based on reports about the curtailment of free-speech.

I'll actually do pretty well out of his policies on a financial level - that doesn't mean I think they're right on a human level, nor do I believe it means I should shut up and accept them meekly any more than the Republicans did when they disagreed with Obama's stances.


I'm doing what I can - I've been helping my Iranian friend work out his options (which are limited - laws are laws .. so currently its looking at universities outside of the US he can study at, unfortunately studying lightning which is his area means its not as easy as it could be).

I'm also contacting local Churches and such and encouraging them to take a stand against the immigration policy and will be attending protests and such, outside of that I'm open to ideas for constructive action that can be taken ... any ideas.

PS - I do believe protests and such ARE worthwhile and effective, politicians need votes to keep their jobs long-term and Trump has a thin skin so being unpopular might get his attention if enough people speak out ... unfortunately a large proportion of the country see his policies as acceptable, so far at least ...

And in case you missed it:

Trump's trade advisor said we need to unwind and repatriate international supply chains

and

Russian back rebels and/or Russians dramatically escalated the simmering conflict in Ukraine

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...heir-promises/

Which is why he appointed someone to head the FCC that will take down net neutrality.

I think we (also liberal here), have every right to be worried. We have a responsibility to be worried about the direction of our country. I think we need to be talking to our friends and our children and our like-minded colleagues about things that concern us. Contacting our representatives and those sympathetic to our cause.

This guy:

...epitomizes exactly what I'm talking about. He didn't run around organizing a protest. He rolled up his sleeves and got to work.

How one "gets to work" with resistance is going to depend on skill sets. Yes, some people should be organizing marches or political pushback. Some of us (IT person) should be pushing for reforms in how our organizations store and encrypt data. (The EFF had some great suggestions along these lines.) I had an idea the other day about developing a randomized "invisible encrypted character" to insert into our immigration data. While we can be compelled by the federal or state government to turn over data like that, it doesn't mean that we have to lay down and take it up the ass. I'd put my skills at invisibly fucking up data sources up against any other government-employed IT guy in my state. And even if it only costs them a couple of weeks of aggravation to figure out how to clean up my records...well, I'm not sure that Chuck Palahniuk wasn't onto something in Fight Club.

(This is one of those cases where IT folks should be heartened by the reality that technology moves faster than legislation.)

What I was ranting about was the ranting as an end game. We've confused the internet as a platform with the concept of audience. If you've got an audience, your words can be work. They can change the world.

Most of us don't have an audience outside of our families and a small circle of friends. If we want to change things, if we want to resist, we've got to be willing to put our money where our mouths are.

To pull out that tired old metaphor: if you think Trump is like Hitler or any of the other Fascists back in the day, think also about how much credit you give the average German citizen who didn't fight as a Nazi, but just did their best to live an ordinary life the best they could. You know, the one's who had reservations about Hitler's rhetoric, might have thought the war was a mistake, worried about some of the anti-semitism, etc., etc. They might even personally been very kind to all the Jews and gypsies they might have known.

That's what talking is to me. If it's so fucking obvious that Trump is evil, then just posting shit on Facebook trying to get people to see the light (half of whom already agree with you and the other half are ignoring you because they think you're a liberal idiot) is not morally sufficient to escape blame. So if it seems sufficient to assuage personal guilt ("I complained about the guy, didn't I?"), then the argument for his evil nature is weak. If the evidence of his evil nature is sufficient, then it's the action that is weak, and the individual guilt for stopping there is inescapable.

Either that, or we're all running around with our hair on fire because the drama is so fucking entertaining that we can't help ourselves.

That's what I'm reacting against.

Huh? This started a relatively short time ago. You can't really use those types of statistics to prove or disprove anything yet.

As far as the process goes, a lot of people are simply for bringing them in without much, if any vetting. It was a key argument in a lot of governors minds when the issue first came up. Obama gave them a middle finger and said take em. It's the entire reason this ever became an issue in the first place.

Trump has taken this way, way, way too far. It's a poorly thought out plan and has been executed even worse. The sad thing is that those of us who have asked for better controls and some regulation of our borders look exactly like what our critics have called us. Racist idiots.

I'm still not a racist idiot. I still believe we should have more controls. I still believe the illegal immigrants in this country are a problem and we can't continue to allow them to come over at a few hundred thousand a year and pretend like everything is ok. There is a space between the dream act and between Trumps asshattery.

The chances we find an in between seem to be dying a horribly quick death.

One can easily argue (and some liberals have) that protests that were organized by the Tea Party had some pretty substantial effects.

What the hell are you talking about? You're just making stuff up now. In 2015, 30 Governors opposed the resettlement of Syrian refugees into their states after the Paris attacks. The reason Obama gave the middle finger to the Governors is because extreme vetting already existed before that point. No one is arguing for just letting people waltz in here.


Again I ask. What is your in between? You're not bringing up arguments at this point, just sniping at both sides (and yet again crying about being called racist) so you can look better for being in the middle. Do you want more than the extreme vetting that is already in place? What would that entail? Explain your actual position and quit bringing up strawman arguments to make yourself look better.

2 years and numerous steps (I think there are 10?) in the process apparently isn't 'extreme' enough. Apparently we need 10 years and double, no triple, the steps.

Quit calling Troy racist.

I've had a few students over the years who were refugees. It does take years to get into the US that way, and one of them wrote about the conditions of the refugee camp he had to stay in while waiting out the process. It wasn't pretty - put it that way. It's very much a rigorous process, and he'd been in the US a few years already, so this is by no means recent.

dola,

I was going to put this in the how many five years old thread, but I really don't have time to search, so I'll just drop this here:

White House claims five-year-old boy detained in US airport for hours 'could have posed a security threat' | The Independent

Well really, how much trouble could a 70 year old cause.

One can also easily argue that a nuanced reading of my posts above suggest that if your skill set is organizing protests, that's perfectly fine as one dimension of resistance. As is accurate reporting of the news. As is writing hair-on-fire political screeds. As is creating eye-poking memes.

It's when the full spectrum of resistance is SMH and complaining about the world not being as cool and progressive as one would like, then you've got a problem as a movement.

It doesn't have to be just about the President. If the election was a conservative mandate (judging by the sweeping victories at all levels of government), plenty of people can think globally but act locally by using their skills to take down/antagonize/impede politicians in their own towns.

Still not racist

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/cho...sibility.0.pdf

Gorsuch doesn't seem like an asshole.

He's not. Obama would've gotten a nominee in if he had nominated an in-kind replacement for Scalia, but alas, he didn't and wouldn't. It is the next nominee that will be the key and I hope and pray that it will continue to be a pro-life jurist.

Yes. Then old men can tell young women what to do with their bodies with impunity!

This is Mike Pence's tweet. It makes me feel like he doesn't know where the Constitution came from.

You of all aliens... Tiny American flag for me sir

Well yes, if Obama had nominated a far right jurist the GOP would have confirmed that person. Why would a Dem president ever do that?

US abortion laws are far more liberal than most of western Europe. Also, there's the irrefutable biological evidence of two bodies.

Europe vs US abortion laws

So it was a requirement for this replacement to be like Scalia, but the goalposts should move for the next replacement?

Most pro-life supporters don't care about abortions, they care about women having sex. And this is coming from someone who is not exactly a pro-choice guy.

Right, Trump or Pence or whomever would definitely pick an in-kind replacement for Ginsburg!

It's a shame there isn't an adult in the White House at the moment, I like Gorsuch and I would be in favor of Garland getting his day as well when the next opening occurs.

Exactly, as a society we're still not comfortable with the fact that women choose to have sex outside of marriage for pleasure.

Under different circumstances I'd accept Gorsuch and resist calls for a filibuster, but given what happened last year the Dems should filibuster anybody Trump puts up. That will probably end the SC filibuster, but that will be beneficial in the long run.

The only possible exception to that would be a nominee that was like a placeholder Pope, somebody old enough that confirmation isn't a thirty or forty year commitment.

I agree. I want conservative justices on the court, but they should demand Trump re-nominate Garland and refuse to consider anyone else. Blatantly unconstitutional stonewalling can't be rewarded at any cost.

We get a court with a decent person, by any means necessary afaic.

The left's reign of terror over the nation is OVER. #NeverAgain

edit: though it ain't exactly been a stellar week in that regard frankly. But now we know why Trump tried to throw a bone to the left earlier.

And the protestors are now at the supreme court, i swear these people would protest if trump declared the sky to be blue.

Trump would only do that while it's overcast, so they would be right to protest.

I don't think it's necessary to make a big deal out of this. If it were me I wouldn't even discuss his qualifications. They should just remind people of Garland and say they will filibuster. The election proved that no persuadable voter cares.

The election proved that people supported stopping the further slide into the leftist abyss.

I'm sure that's painful to acknowledge but there's your heavy dose of reality for the day.

Learn it.
Know it.
Live it.

You're more dramatic than a teenage girl who just got dumped.

The people voted for Clinton you know